£178 

.1 

.W748 




































* ••••’ A 0 

c \. *0 * 1 * 

^ *■ 



* ^ V *i'/l% c\ . 9 ^ * * • *> A 

*•„ ** ** ‘ v ^fe'* \ & ** 


,° sLa9*?+ c 



<A $ 0 " d -* 

’: "of ; 

*^> ** 



* /.. \ / \ j> %. -• 

%> v »»V^ <T\ -0^ **•<>,. \> *»•♦*„. C\. 

c > ' JFrnh ^* * P +. a & a ^ 



; %/ : 

» 

«? «3> o 

,<y O 

* « * * * ^ ^O <<&> & ° 

■" * o «£. r; 

; ;^a*. ^o* ; 

V 


’ ^ * 

\n © 

«* .♦* ^ V 

<. *'Vr.* m -. 

o* 


*. 

A>V » 

,* 4? '% %' 



' A 4 A<S 
"*b & :***, 


^1\\\^> % ^ ** u» r vv» *> ^^iiwnn^. ^ w 5,0 vv - # *g 

% ».o s ‘ aP° ^***if f * *6 jp ^ ** 




°, W .* 

*° <$?'% v 

A < '»757T*' o^ ^J- *-i.. <r % . -... - .« 

©«lf <3^ 6^ . • r ^ ^O VJa ,«»« *<$>. <p , 

• v?_ 0 * a?/t???* 4, O • rc5^v v v^ ^ 0 4 - 



<“. '*^frf«' a* 


t »* nr. 


'. ^ 0* ■) 


* o ^, * 


^ot.* 


••■5®?*' A % -w• O o >0 \ ''zm*s A"% "5 
> " /oV’ / ..... % —' A .-■ A 




. «r% xxw % J 

V cJk * , V XP * 

^ "o * * * A <. + - 

^ V 6 0**„ 


°. ^ ; 

* ^ \ V 

^ -or sk •' 
r 

©» * . ^ 


AV • 

•* 


•P' t 


■•«. iuv^saj, k ^ V t^y/miw > ,a' ^ ** %'iRijss^o'j* y' ^ .> 

cv .0 . f • ^ A ’*»* c* n^* .. • # 

.a 4 ’ A.a^Ao a .«, 'JP&hZ." •#*>, A J ArjA. ^ 




"o V 


'^A 4, .* 


<* A * 


^C> 

A V *V 
■V V 


°, W ; 
• ^ V °. 



• ^ ,A * 

: >v 


A V ^f> * 

o. -o©T'*" A <. A^ V 

jA ©°J!** Cr < 

O av * v (, .♦. 

-o/ V .- 



^ *; 



/ °- o 

v % \ii^V*' , > U ^v^.— °* ** 

• 4 '”*‘* *” 

A V ^ c <b^ r * 

fA ^ ■'?. . A A* Af A.V ^ •-«»:« rt. 




0*0 


* t •» 


v Mm ° M 



❖* ^ : 

■ '*•** <* 
3 o a£ ,»J 



<V . 0 *. *•.«• A 0 

v , *,LV1% g\ .o^ ,’ 

•. % » vsfer « "V / /* ( 

* ^ r vf>v * 

* c£ ^ ° % aV** «* 

«- * «"*T« , v ■<? «i 

A° ^ *° • * * <& <* *< 

/Or - t» * - ?"U A> w /> 

:te. .*£w*. 'v *wa\ ♦* .*♦ /*’ 



<* *'7V»* ,0 V - 

^ ^ f,° °o 


<* * 

* ^ CT 

* 40 * * 

> <£> vfv .jV* 

^ *•’<'• ’’ ? ■ > ^ %7^V jP 

A * * °S > V , 8 V/* 

* «<?. js.«_ -\ a. *£ 



<4* * ^ ’ < 

'••** <v <* *•. 

A* A*"* 

O 4^ * Jr^tS. ** '■p 




’oy 




# r ^ ^ * 



4 

V- 4^ 

* V ‘ <S - 3 '** ^ A ** 

tr -iipis* “ 

A.^'*^ a a ^.<5 vT 4 . 

4 '£’ ^ 4V « 

%. '“•*' <* %.'• 
A> *.'•* *& 6**S <$»* rtV . I./*. ^TJ 

C o ,4^ ^ C° * % ^srnt* o 


°« "W ; 

• av • 

♦* ^ “• 


•'TV** ,&' 

^0r 






b V 

*<*> :w&: 

^ °o Q 0 ' <$> 

s'Sr +0 ^ .•*.. % # ' .^ ... 






* ^ ** 
«* vP « 


,* ^ %• . 
'••»• ... O * 



°, %<* : 

*° ^ ^ 6 o 

^ 4{V ^ „ 




' *-»* A° ^ "°* ** 

0^ .. . *■' * * *b 


\'-*.Tc° .0 

- &K i*y + 

+ ^ A^ *■ 

‘ c> 

* aV^ 

* ^ ^ • 





1 • o 



o jO V^ 

* *.,.* V .. % '•«■> , ’ A 0 ^ "’ 

- > v v‘^1% ?a ,<y ,»*«, v v •'" 

■ * |* •■*»'-■ \/ ; m- w ; 

j,V*\ -»o X 

w a oV ^feLXK’ ■» aV y*\ • 

/.V \'»1 <r. . i'V ■r . * 








































'VUG 


WILLSON’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES; 

for Schools. 

The publishers invite the critical attention of teachers and the public to 
the merits of this History. Although it has been published less than two years, 
its sale is already greater than any other School History—it has been intro¬ 
duced into the Public Schools of New York City—the Normal School in Al¬ 
bany, the Public Schools in Newark, Brooklyn, Rochester, Buffalo, Cincinnati 
and St. Louis—as well as in the best Male and Female Academies and Semi¬ 
naries in all parts of the country. The publisher’s ask its farther introduc¬ 
tion on its merits alone , firmly persuaded that it has merits possessed by no other 
School History. Its peculiarities are—rsuperior accuracy, both as to facts and 
dates—a complete Marginal Analysis—Geographical Notes at the bottom of 
each page with Maps illustrative, nearly one hundred Maps, Plans of Battles, 
and Charts illustrating the History—a Chronological Chart of American His¬ 
tory, with dates from 1509 to 1845.' The history of eacS State is first given 
separately, then the whole collectively—The history embraces a period of 353 
years, beginning with the discovery of America by Columbus. The best his¬ 
torians have been consulted, public documents searched, errors in other histo¬ 
ries corrected, and the whole adapted with admirable skill to practical use in 
the schoolroom.. The publishers invite a comparison with any other History 
for Schools extant. The book is printed on good paper and substantially 
bound, and is furnished to Schools at as low a price as any of the inferior His¬ 
tories containing the same amount of reading matter. Teachers and School 
Committees will be furnished with copies for examination by the publishers. 

MARK H. NEWMAN & CO., 

May 26th, 1847. 199 Broadway, New-York. 

1lead the following from Cincinnati :— 

The Text-book Committee having examined Marcius Willson’s History of 
the United States,, would/hereby recommend'it as a suitable book for the use 
of the Common Schools of the city. We would suggest that hereafter it 
should be used in the place of Mrs. Willard’s Abridgment. The work now 
recommended is one of great accuracy, clear and forcible style, embracing a 
period from 1492, the discovery of the country, to 1845, the opening of the 
administration of James K. Polk. This history, we think, is well adapted to 
the use of schools. The miniature chart of Ancient History shows at a glance, 
by means of a light shade, the-progress of civilization and the settlement of the 
Anglo-Saxon race upon this continent. The arrangement of the work into 
four several parts is natural, and renders the work easily remembered. 

Period I. Embraces the history of Voyages and Discoveries till 1607, the 
first settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, a period of 115 years. 

Period II. Extends from the settlement of Jamestown to the American Revo¬ 
lution in 1775, 168 years. 

Period III. From the commencement of the American Revolution to the 
Administration of George Washington in 17S9, a period of 14 years. 

Period IV. From George Washington’s administration in 17S9 to James K. 
Polk in 1845, a period of 56 years. 

The marginal dates, (new style,) as here arranged, we consider of great 
importance to a school book, when dates are taught, as a part of Common School 
instruction. All which is respectfully submitted. 

CHAS. S. BRYANT, 

JOUN A. WARDER, 

WM. PHILLIPS, Jr., 

I concur in the recommendation of Willson’s History as a Text-Book. 

Jan. 18, 1S47. PEYTON. S; SYMMES. 

On the 22ck February, 1847, the Board of Trustees and Visitors of the 
Common Schools of Cincinnati, unanimously adopted the following resolution. 

“ Resolved, That the United States History, by. Marcius Willson, be and the same is hereby 
adopted by the board of Trustees and Visitors as the Text-Book to be used in the Common 
Schools of Cincinnati, in place of the abridgment, by Mrs. Willard.” 


Text-Book 

Committee. 






















A 


REPLY 

TO 

MRS. WILLARD'S “ APPEAL.” 


“ Look on this picture,—and then on that.” 


V. 

Vi 

■v. 


A few days since, the writer of the following article received 
from the city of New York a pamphlet, of which the following is 
the title : “ An Appeal to the Public, especially those concerned in 
Education, against the wrong and injury done by Marcius Willson, 
in his pamphlet, entitled, £ Report on American Histories, etc. ; 
published by Mark H. Newman & Co., New York, 1847’—show¬ 
ing also their trespasses on my literary property. By Emma Wil¬ 
lard.” To this “ Appeal,” the party accused of injustice submits 
the following Reply. 

The complaints and accusations brought forward in Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s “ Appeal” refer to two distinct subjects; consisting, 1st, of 
charges of injustice against Mr. Willson’s pamphlet “ Review of 
American Histories and 2d, of charges against him, of imitating , 
in his History of the United States, Mrs. Willard’s work on the 
same subject. We have been at some trouble to analyze Mrs. 
Willard’s very discursive “ Appeal,” and, for the sake of method, 
have arranged the various charges contained therein under the two 
heads above mentioned. First, then, we shall examine Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s 

Charges against the Review. 

The pamphlet, of which Mrs. Willard at this late day complains, 
was first published, in full, in the early part of July, 1845, nearly 
'wo years ago; at which time also the first twenty-three pages of 
said pamphlet appeared in the July number of the Biblical Repos- 

1 


2 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

itory, a Quarterly, published in the city of New York. The title 
of the pamphlet then was, and still is: “ A Critical Review of 
American Common School Histories, as embraced in a Report sub¬ 
mitted to the New Jersey Society of Teachers and Friends of 
Education, at a quarterly meeting, held March 7, 1845. By M. 
Willson, N. Y.” 

This pamphlet was a general review of American Histories, but 
was more particularly devoted to an examination of eight of our 
most prominent School Histories, viz.: Hale’s, Webster’s, Olney’s, 
Grimshaw’s, Frost’s, the two Goodrich’s, and Mrs. Willard’s. The 
subjects treated were, 1st, Arrangement; 2d, Anachronisms , con¬ 
tained in all the principal works on American History, not except¬ 
ing those of Belknap, Holmes, Bancroft, &c.; 3d, Errors of fact; 
4th, Literary merits. /phis brief statement is made to correct the 
impression which Mrs/ Willard’s “ Appeal” would convey, that the 
Review was directed solely, or even principally against Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s History. It is true that the work of that lady suffered the 
most severely, simply because it was the most open to criticism; yet 
in all cases the language of the Review was perfectly decorous and 
respectful, which is much more than can be said of Mrs. Willard’s 
“ Appeal.” Because the writer of the Review has stated facts 
which Mrs. W. cannot, and does not attempt to controvert, the pub¬ 
lic are told that he is “ robbing her of her character as an author;” 
circulating his “ slanderous pamphlet;” “ abusing her works and 
herself;”—he is charged with “ avarice” and “ defamation with 
being “ unfit to give moral impressions to the young;”—and he is 
sneered at for his “ amiable air of great zeal for the cause of edu¬ 
cation ;” for “his wonderful assumption of learning;” “his pre¬ 
tensions as a writer of history ;” his “ amazingly calm magisterial 
tone and manner;” and, to close a long tirade of similar abuse, this 
amiable authoress, in a lame attempt at ridicule, adds, that from 
Mr*. Willson’s “ criticisms upon facts or events, one would natu¬ 
rally suppose that he had lived since the days of Columbus /” 

We cannot here enter upon an exposition of the character of the 
“ Review” complained of, any farther than to defend it where it 
has been unjustly assailed, but we ask every one who feels an in¬ 
terest in the subject to read it, that he may judge for himself 
whether there be any injustice in it or not. The circumstances 
under which the Review was submitted to the public have been 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “APPEAL.” 3 

fully stated, (see second page of the cover ;*) and never, that we 
have learned, was the propriety ox justice of its publication ques¬ 
tioned, until Mrs. Willard’s “Appeal” made its appearance. If 
the criticisms contained in the Review were facts at the time when 
they were read before the New Jersey Education Society, then we 
need no farther justification. Even Mrs. Willard does not attempt 
to show, but in two instanoes, that we have imputed to her History, 
errors of fact, that were not so when the charges were made. 
Wherein then does she charge our Review with doing her injustice ? 
Principally in this;—that since the Review was first published, 
she has corrected the errors which it pointed out in her History, and 
that we still allow the Review to be circulated, as though those er¬ 
rors in her History still remained! And because we will not new 
suppress the Review, she charges “ the Review, bearing date 1847” 
with containing, “ concerning her Histories alone, about forty erro¬ 
neous accusations .” Herein the lady unwittingly makes a confes¬ 
sion rather injurious to her cause. She does not say that Willson’s 
Review contained, when first read in public, in 1845, any erroneous 
accusations whatever, concerning her Histories as then published ; 
but that, at the present date , 1847, since she has corrected her 
History, the Review imputes to it about forty errors, which no 
longer exist! Suppose, that we should admit, that since we wrote 
our Review, Mrs. Willard has corrected “ about forty” of the errors 
which we pointed out; we should, however, see no impropriety 
in still allowing the Review to circulate as a standing historical 
document. Mrs. Willard has made use of the fruits of our labors 
in correcting her History, so far as she has corrected it, and we 
see no reason why we should allow her the exclusive use of cor¬ 
rections, which we ourselves have made. On the contrary, we 
would sooner think of accusing her of plagiarizing from our Re¬ 
view. 

Mrs. Willard indeed says that “the major part of the accusa¬ 
tions” contained in the Review, “ were unfounded from the first.” 
But is such an assertion to pass, unchallenged, when no attempt is 
made to show wherein the accusations are unfounded ? The Re¬ 
view gives abundant references, dates, and quotations, to prove its 
assertions j all which Mrs. Willard dispose! of by her simple dic- 

* The Review complained of title, cover, and all, is appended to this Reply, 
that the reader may compare and judge for himself. 


4 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^S u APPEAL . 19 

turn, “they are unfounded.” She repeatedly charges the Review 
with “ accusing authors of errors which they never committed 
but why has she not gratified the readers of the Appeal by making 
specifications? Have we made any erroneous quotations from 
Mrs. Willard’s, or from any other History ? If so, let it be shown, 
for the public will certainly demand proof of the charge. The 
reader can satisfy himself by referring to the Review, and compa¬ 
ring it with the works criticised. 

Mrs. Willard charges us (“ Appeal”, page 6,) with using, for our 
criticisms, the “ first editions of her Histories.” This remark she 
subsequently qualifies (page 28) by saying, “ that is, the first edi¬ 
tions of my American Histories as published subsequently to 1841,” 
at which time, she says, the abridged History was entirely rewritten ; 
her former work not being by her while she was writing it. To 
this charge we reply, that the abridged History was the work 
principally referred to, and that we used a copy of the edition of 
1844, which copy is now on our table, and which, we have reason 
to believe, differs in no respect from any other copies of the work 
published that year. The writing of the Review was commenced 
in December, 1844, and we used a copy of Mrs. Willard’s History, 
published the same year. How then stands the assertion of Mrs. W. ? 
And we now challenge any person to find a copy of Mrs. Willard’s 
History bearing date prior to March 7, 1845, that does not contain 
all the errors which the Review attributes to her work. 

Among many ungrammatical sentences which the Review point¬ 
ed out in Mrs. Willard’s History, there were ten examples, em¬ 
braced in eleven lines of the Review, of the wrong use of the 
pronoun ; as, “ who did he send,” &c. The “ Appeal” now as¬ 
serts that seven of these examples were corrected before the first 
publication of the Review, and the other three immediately after, 
(“ Appeal” p. 9.) This might have been so, and we be still free from 
having made any misstatement; for the Review was read in public 
before a large audience in the city of Newark, New Jersey, on the 
7th of March, 1845, nearly four months before it was published; 
and, doubtless, Mrs. Willard was informed of the character of it. She 
is careful, however, not to state how long it was before the Review 
was “ published ” that stie made those corrections. This is of the 
same nature as the other charges, of “ about forty” misstatements 
now found in the Review. 


5 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^S “APPEAL.” 

But Mrs. Willard now maintains that the phraseology which she 
used “ ought to be recognized by grammarians as correct.” Then 
why did she change the sentences? She says, page 9 of the Ap¬ 
peal, •“ These colloquialisms, I now remark, are all one thing,— who 
used for whom in asking questions. This is according to good 
usage in ordinary conversation, as, ‘ who did you see V i Who did 
you marry V And ought, I think, to be recognized by grammari¬ 
ans ; for good usage is, after all, the standard.” Good usage , for¬ 
sooth ! “ Who did you see ?” And is this the teaching of a lady 

who has been for “ thirty years at the head of an important literary 
institution ?” Behold then, reader, the standard by which our 
authoress measures grammatical purity l —We also request you to 
read from page 18 to page 23, of the Review, the quotations from 
Mrs. Willard’s History ; compare them with her History published 
prior to 1845, that you may know there is no unfairness in the ex¬ 
tracts ; and then observe how Mrs. Willard, in the “ Appeal,” dis¬ 
poses of the subject. She says, page 9, “ Of the words which he 
(Willson) cites as incorrectly used, there is not one in which the defi¬ 
nitions given by Mr. Webster in his large dictionary, do not justify 
Mrs. Willard.” But does Mr. Webster sanction such gross rhetori¬ 
cal and grammatical absurdities as this teacher of “thirty years’ ” ex¬ 
perience has committed, and which she attempts to justify, and most 
of which she still retains in her History ? Let the reader examine that 
portion of the Review referred to, and judge for himself in this matter- 

But Mrs. Willard farther says, in reference to the errors attrib¬ 
uted to her History, (p. 17, of the Appeal,) “Of these accusations, 
the major part were unfounded from the first; and the others (accu¬ 
sations 1) however small the matters to which they relate, have been 
corrected nearly two years , as Mr. Willson knows, so that the whole 
body of these accusations are now untrue.” Is it possible that Mrs. 
Willard ever saw this paragraph before the publication of the “ Ap¬ 
peal ?” The evident meaning of it, after correcting its rhetorical 
and grammatical inaccuracies, is, that the errors pointed out in Mrs. 
Willard’s History have been corrected. And will not the reader of 
the Appeal be disappointed to find that the greater portion of them 
has not been corrected ? We have now before us one of the latest 
nopies of Mrs. Willard’s History, published the present year , 1847, 
and by comparing it with our Review, and with the copy of the 
History of 1844, which we used in writing our criticisms, we find 


6 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

that, of the whole number of errors of fact which the Review im¬ 
putes to Mrs. Willard’s History, only five have been corrected. 
We can hardly believe that Mrs. Willard penned that paragraph, 
or that she even ignorantly sanctioned it; for how could she be so 
ignorant as not to know whether she had made corrections in her 
book or not? Let the reader satisfy^ himself in this matter by look¬ 
ing over the errors of fact imputed, in the foregoing Review, to 
Mrs. Willard’s History, and comparing them with any edition of her 
work published prior to the present time. To aid him in this inves¬ 
tigation, we will specify what are the only errors of fact that have, 
thus far, been corrected : First, the inaccurate account of De Soto, 
see Review, p. 13;—second, that pertaining to Weston’s Colony, 
p. 15;—third, that concerning the settlement of Delaware, which 
has been wholly re-written, p. 16 ;—fourth, the departure of Wash¬ 
ington for the French forts, p. 29 —and fifth* the localities of Bun¬ 
ker’s and Breed’s Hill, p. 32. 

But the reader may say, ‘perhaps Mrs.-Willard will deny that 
any of the other cases specified in the Review are errors,. and that 
it is on these grounds she asserts that she has corrected the errors 
pointed out by the Review.’ But, although this charitable suppo¬ 
sition should be true, still it will not help the case, for there are 
errors whioh Mrs. Willard admits to be such, which have not been 
corrected in her History. In a note on page 22 of the Appeal, Mrs.. 
Willard admits “six errors, (in dates,) of which three were wrong 
by just ten years, and one a mistake in the day of the month, where 
6 was used for 26,” &c. By this we can ascertain some of the- 
errors, which Mrs. Willard acknowledges, although she has evi¬ 
dently made one too many against herself, among those specified 
as being wrong by ten years. Two of the cases to which she 
alludes are, evidently, 1st, Castine’s attack on Pemaquid, and 2d r 
the Jerseys united to New York, both of which she had dated ten 
years too early. The other is the surrender of Louisburg, which 
she dates July 6th, instead of July 26th. These three, therefore,, 
Mrs. Willard acknowledges to be errors; and yet, notwithstanding 
the positive statement of the Appeal;, that the errors pointed out in 
the Review, “ however small the matters to which they relate, have 
leen corrected for nearly two yearsf —notwithstanding, I say, this 
positive statement, yet not one of these three acknowledged errors 
has been corrected, either in Mrs. Willard’s large ox small History, 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL/ 


7 


up to this present year 1847. We have new copies of both of Mrs. 
Willard’s works before us, under date of 1847, which we have just 
obtained from the city of New York, for the purpose of these com¬ 
parisons.* Misstatements so exceedingly foolish, and so open to 
detection, we know not how to speak of, nor how to reconcile with 
our views of mental sanity. 

But the writer of the “ Appeal” refers to ourselves for authority 
that the errors have been corrected, and in a note, p. 17, quotes 
the following language from the second page of the title leaf of the 
Review. “ Since the Review was first published, the errors pointed 
out in it have been corrected in several of the works referred to.” 
The writer of the “ Appeal,” by gratuitously supposing that we 
had especial reference to Mrs. Willard’s History, appears to have 
taken it fcr granted, without investigation, that Mrs. Willard had 
made the corrections. This is the most charitable supposition we 
can make for whoever wrote this part of the “Appeal.” Con¬ 
nected with the same subject, there is another perversion of truth, 
which we have not the boldness to charge upon a woman. In the 
same note, p. 17, of the “ Appeal,” it is stated that the remark 
alluded to on the second page of the title leaf of the Review is, “ at 
the foot of the page, in small print, much out of sight.” But the 
remark alluded to is printed in the same type as all the rest of the 
page; and as the whole page is now republished, exactly as before, 
(see second page of the cover of the Review,) the reader will prob¬ 
ably satisfy himself that a perversion of truth was not undesigned 
by the writer of the “Appeal.” 

As regards the rhetorical and grammatical errors of Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s History, we remark, that, out of the forty-six specifications 
made in the Review, eighteen, and only eighteen, of the grossest of 
the errors have been corrected, ten of which were the colloquialisms 
previously alluded to. And, surely, why make these corrections 
at all, as the general style of the book can scarcely be affected by 
a little pruning. 

From page 23 of the Appeal we extract the following, showing a 
perversion of truth, (whether ignorantly or designedly we will not 
say,) almost unparalleled. The “ Appeal” says, “ The matter 

* As the publishers may yet make these corrections in Mrs. Willards History, 
in a subsequent edition of the present year, the reader would do well to refer to 
copies under date of 1846. 


8 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 


contained in the last nine pages of Mr. Willson’s pamphlet is thus 
headed : ‘ An Appendix containing an additiondt list of the errors 
found in our Common School Histories.’ The phrase italicised 
affirms a former list of errors as at present existing , and affirms it 
under no date hut that of the title page , which is 184V.” 

We do not like to accuse a lady of wilful perversion, and there¬ 
fore shall use no harsh language, but simply state facts in contra¬ 
vention of Mrs. Willard’s statement. Mrs. W. has taken up the 
pamphlet Review published this present year , 1847, and she indi¬ 
rectly asserts that the Appendix contained therein is now published 
for the first time ; and she directly asserts that it is published under 
no date but that of the title page of the cover of the pamphlet, which 
is 1847. We deny both these assertions, by stating, 1st, that the 
Appendix alluded to has been published in every pamphlet of the 
Review ever issued ; and that it was published and circulated, in 
the city of New York and elsewhere, three months before Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s Reply in the Biblical Repository of Oct. 1845 ; although that 
lady now says, “ there are several reasons why I should suppose it 
(the Appendix) written subsequently to my * Reply.’” What does 
the lady mean by-such assertions ! In the second place, she directly 
asserts that the Appendix is published under no date but that of 
1847. But the first two lines in the Appendix assert that the 
Appendix is a part of the “ Report” submitted to the New Jersey 
Education Society; and the heading of the “ Report” or “ Review,” 
says that it was read “ at a quarterly meeting of the Society held 
March 7, 1845.” Thus, both Review and Appendix, which com¬ 
prise the Report as published, bear date 1845. The cover only has 
on it the imprint of the publishers under date of 1847. And does 
not the publishers’ imprint, in Mrs. Willard’s History change the date 
every year, although the History was written several years ago ? 

Mrs. Willard has written nearly four pages on the subject of 
chronology, in which she mainly endeavors to ridicule the “superior 
accuracy” of our History, in the attempt to give all dates uniformly 
in New Style. She says, Mr. Willson “pretends that it is the 
business of writers of even school Histories, to perplex their scholars 
with technical chronology , and go into the vexed questions of old 
and new style.” (Appeal, p. 20.) We reply, that we make no 
such pretensions . The preface of our History merely states that 
the dales are given wholly in New Style, and this remark is de- 




9 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “APPEAL.” 

signed for the teacher , and is embraced in less than two lines. . The 
fact that we do however, or intend to, give all dates uniformly in 
New Style, avoids much confusion and many discrepancies. Again, 
p. 21, we read, that Mr. Willson, “ in his own History, improperly 
meddles with what is not his concern, and puzzles his scholars for 
nothing.” Again we read, p. 21, “ Neither is infallible correctness 
the attribute of any author, however learned, honest, and truthful, 
—much less of those who are neither.” Such are the arguments 
used by this candid reviewer. They require no answer ;—nor do 
the polite insinuations of the authoress require any comment.—Be¬ 
tween the remarks quoted from John Wade, author of “British 
History chronologically arranged,” and the statements in the Re¬ 
view, we see no discrepancy on the subject of chronology—a 
subject with which Mrs. W.’s remarks show that she has little ac¬ 
quaintance. 

We have remarked that in only two instances has Mrs. Willard 
even attempted to show that the Review attributed errors to her His¬ 
tory which were not so in reality. Thus she allows all the other 
numerous charges of error to go against her by default. The first 
charge of error that she controverts, (see Appeal, page 7,) but 
against which she makes scarcely an attempt at argument, is with 
reference to the first land discovered by the Cabots in 1497;—we 
maintaining, with Bancroft, that the land first discovered was Labra¬ 
dor , and Mrs. Willard alleging, in accordance with all the old 
writers, that it was Newfoundland. We gave our authorities in 
the Review, (page 13,) to which we again refer the reader for con¬ 
firmation of the position we assumed. 

The other charge of error that she designed to controvert, is con¬ 
tained in the following extract from page 25 of the pamphlet Review. 

“ Mrs. Willard has fallen into an error with respect to the first settlement in the 
Carolinas. In North Carolina two separate colonies were formed:—the Albemarle 
County Colony, in the north-eastern part of the State, and the Clarendon County 
Colony, farther south, on Cape Fear River. But Mrs. Willard, on page 95 of the 
large work, and also on page 121 of the Abridgement, by a marginal note, describes 
the colony on Cape Fear River, as being the first in South Carolina . That this is 
not a typographical error may be shown from the fact that the writer speaks of 
these settlements as the Carolinas; meaning thereby, North and South Carolina; 
and besides, she speaks of no other settlement being the first in South Carolina.” 
Review, p. 26. 


10 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

Let the 'reader carefully peruse this extract, and then, consider¬ 
ing that Cape Fear River is within the present limits of North 
Carolina, ask himself, what is the charge against Mrs. Willard’s 
History? It is simply this ;—that she commits'the topographical 
blunder of speaking of the settlement on Cape Fear River as being 
within the limits of South Carolina ;—the same kind of blunder that 
she made when repeatedly speaking of Delaware as being on the 
East side of Delaware River; a blunder that had remained in her 
History until we pointed it out, ( see Review, p. 16,) but which is 
one of those subsequently corrected. Mrs. Willard has devoted 
four, pages and a half of small type in her “ Appeal” to a discus¬ 
sion of the subject, whether the early settlement at the mouth of 
Cape Fear River belonged, u at the first division of Carolina ,” to 
the northern province or to the southern province:—a subject pre¬ 
senting an inconsistency in itself, because at the time of the Cape 
Fear settlement there was no southern province , nor any settlement 
in South Carolina until ten years later. Mrs. Willard has discussed 
a subject which is not the question at issue ; and all her arguments, 
based on an absurdity, are wholly irrelevant to the charge made in 
the Review. Moreover, we were writing about the early settle¬ 
ments made within the present limits of North Carolina, and so was 
Mr. Bancroft in that part of his History referred to by Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard ; and yet that lady appears, most unaccountably, to have 
mistaken us both; and, in order to do so, has gone so far “ beyond 
the record,” as to make History belie itself. But admitting, for 
the sake of argument, that there was a division of the province of 
Carolina at the time of the Cape Fear settlement, how then stands 
the question? Plainly thus. Mrs. Willard maintains that the 
Cape Fear settlement, although its locality is now within North 
Carolina, was then attached to the southern province, and therefore 
she has given its history under the head of the History 'of South 
Carolina l Why then did she not follow the same plan with respect 
to the Albemarle colony, which was in the north-eastern part of the 
present North Carolina ? To be consistent she should have given 
its history under the head of History of Virginia, because it was at 
first connected with the Virginia colony :—and thus, cutting off the 
Albemarle colony on the north, and the Cape Fear colony on the 
south, she would have left North Carolina without any early history 
at all! “ Consistency, what a jewel thou art!” 


II 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 

Connected with the same subject, Mrs. Willard charges us with 
committing “ two errors ,” by speaking of the “ Albemarle county 
colony,” and the “ Clarendon county colony.” (Appeal, p. 29.) 
She says, “ According to the present acceptation of the term 
county , it cannot properly be applied to those undefined regions.” 
But would not this lady historian have done well to examine history 
a little, before making this charge of error ? She is writing 
gravely upon disputed joints in Carolina history, and appears never 
to have seen the work of Williamson , the principal historian of 
Carolina. Let her turn to that work for information, and there she 
may read that the two colonies referred to were early called, the 
one, the “ Albemarle county colony,” and the other the “ Clarendon 
county colonyor in Grahame, B. IV., she may read that when 
the first settlement was made “ southward of Cape Fear, the dis¬ 
trict was denominated the county of Clarendon and also, that 
Yeamans received “the appointment of commander-in-chief of 
Clarendon county .” This is probably one of those cases with ref¬ 
erence to which Mrs. Willard makes the polite remark (Appeal, p. 
32,) “ I cannot but think that he (Willson) has, as a historian, mad'e 
some assertions, for the purpose of showing' others in the wrong, 
that he knows are contrary to ascertained facts.” Has our fair 
authoress sufficient historical acumen to perceive that we are right 
now? We should think it useless to ask her to admit that she is 
wrong. 

Thus we have noticed all the tangible charges brought forward 
against the Review,—charges, the absurdity and falsity of which 
would have rendered them unworthy of notice, if advanced by any 
other than the person complaining of injustice. The great aim of 
Mrs. Willard, in her “ Appeal,” is to excite the sympathy of the 
public in her favor, by the cry that she is an injured woman. She 
writes as though she thought the fact of her being a female should 
screen her from all censure as an authoress. It is doubtful whether 
candid persons-, in search of truth, will be willing, from motives of 
gallantry, to give currency, by the use of her book, to notorious 
errors in history. That the Review, of which she complains, has 
greatly injured the sale of her work, by showing that it is the most 
faulty in point of style, the most erroneous in point of fact, and on 
the whole the most carelessly written of any School History in this 
country, is n^doubt true ; but we assert that the Review is just and 



12 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 

impartial, and that Mrs. Willard has not even attempted to show 
that it has committed errors in imputing errors to her History, ex¬ 
cept in the two instances alluded to, in which she alleges that her 
views of an historical fact are right and ours wrong. What then ! 
Because a just criticism upon a faulty book will injure its sale, 
must the pen of the reviewer be laid aside ? Does the writer of a 
just criticism commit any injustice upon the author of a bad book ? 
Does he not, rather, do an act of justice to» the public, and will not 
the public commend him therefor ? 

But the very gist of Mrs. Willard’s complaint against the Review 
is, that it is published and circulated long after the errors which it 
pointed out have been corrected. This is the sum of the whole 
matter. But had the corrections been made, as alleged tojiave 
been, still we should deem her cause of complaint a trivial one. 
But we have shown the falsity of the allegation, so far as the great 
body of the errors is concerned. Why such an allegation was 
made, under the circumstances, which ought to have been known to 
the writer of the “ Appeal,” is beyond our comprehension. Mrs. 
W., however, evidently writes, (if she wrote the “ Appeal,”) under 
the impression that the great mass of the errors, “ however small 
the matters to which they relate,” had been corrected. She acknowl¬ 
edges no obligation to us for our labors in furnishing the materials 
with which she might have made her History considerably better 
than it would ever, otherwise, have been; and she calls upon the 
public to condemn us, because we have enabled her to supply that 
very public with an article of her own manufacture somewhat im¬ 
proved. Did ever one hear of such ingratitude! But the public 
has, already, not only thanked us for what we have done in giving 
additional accuracy to the History of our Country, but, considering 
that “the laborer is worthy of his hire,” (Appeal, p. 10,) has given 
us the credit of the few corrections made in Mrs. Willard’s History, 
and, setting her History aside, has taken ours into favor. We sym¬ 
pathize with the lady in her afflictions, but can afford her no conso¬ 
lation. 

We now proceed, in the second place, to Mrs. Willard’s 

Charges of Imitation and Plagiarism, 

or, as stated on the title page of the “ Appeal,” the “ Trespasses on 
her literary property.” g 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL. ,r 


13 


Mrs. Willard accuses us, not only of imitating, in the History we 
have written, the plan which she has adopted in hers, but, also, her 
style of writing; and, farther, that in sundry instances specified, we 
have plagiarized the very language in her book, and which she 
claims as her exclusive u literary property;”—to all which charges 
we now ask the careful attention of the reader, while we expose the 
unfounded assertions and gross ignorance of the writer who made 
them. We have analyzed these several charges, and arranged 
them- in the following order : 

1st Charge.-—Mrs. Willard charges-me with imitating her in intro¬ 
ducing a series of progressive maps, &c., (“ Appeal,” p. 9.) A suf¬ 
ficient reply to this would be that my three progressive maps are, 
tolo coelo, different from her ten or eleven. Hers are, simply, rude and 
imperfect geographical maps, in the ordinary style ; and in their 
character differing in no respect from maps which have long been 
used in historical works. Such were John Smith’s early maps of 
New England and Virginia; the map of the French Jesuits in 
Bancroft, iii. 152-3; the map in Bancroft, ii., between pages 
296 and 297 ; the two maps in Winterbotham’s United States; 
and such were all the maps of our country which have been pub¬ 
lished, from the rude sketches of the first voyagers down to the 
present time. The number of such maps, found in works on 
American History, is legion; and a connected series of them 
would illustrate the progress of settlement and civilization in the 
same manner that Mrs. Willard’s do. And because Mrs. Willard 
was the first to combine them into a series in a School History of 
the United States, has no other person a right to get up any kind 
of maps or charts whatever, to illustrate the progress of our coun¬ 
try’s history ? The idea is preposterous. But farther, my three 
maps, on pages 46, 284, and 347,* are not at all on the plan of Mrs. 
Willard’s maps, nor of any that I have seen previously published. 
They are, rather, charts, on geographical delineations, showing, by 
contrasts of light and shade, the gradual advance of civilized upon 
savage life. On this head the complaint of Mrs. Willard is not 
only absurd, but truly ridiculous. 

The smaller maps in my school History, numbering sixty-one in 
all, are geographical maps, neatly drawn, and having scales of 

* In the last ten editions, this last map will be found on page 357. 

2 



14 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

measurement, and scattered throughout the work as needed, so as 
to present to the eye of the pupil the topography of the very places 
referred to. To correspond with these Mrs. Willard has only 
twelve or thirteen smaller maps, (and these are embraced in the 
eleven before alluded to,) which are on different scales of measure¬ 
ment, but without anything to mark the difference ; and they are 
collected on three or four pages of her work, away from the events 
which they are designed to illustrate. Is then the flan of my maps 
and charts an imitation of hers ? Moreover, the flan of illustrating 
history by maps, is as old as the Common Law—extending back, 
“ time whereof the memory of man runneth not the contrary.” 

But farther,—my History contains a brief description of nearly 
every place referred to,—^-such as the localities of battles—the ruins 
of forts, &e.; and this, hy some , has been regarded a very impor¬ 
tant feature of the work. Mrs. W’illard has nothing of the kind in 
her History, and as she cannot here charge me with imitation , she 
calls it “ a vicious excess , tending greatly to the discredit of my 
work.” To this we simply remark, that the public has given a 
very different verdict from that pronounced by her ladyship.—So 
much for the gravely charged parallelisms between the geographical 
illustrations of my History and Mrs. Willard’s, and so much for the 
somewhat presumptuous claims to original invention. 

2d Charge.—Mrs. Willard’s “ Appeal” says, (page 11,) “ The type 
and general appearance of the two books are strikingly similar!” 
“The pages of Willson are of the same length exactly as those of 
the abridged History, (Mrs. Willard’s,) and the width of the read¬ 
ing matter in both exactly the same.” Grave assertions! The 
lady might have added, “ and the name Willson is very similar to 
that of Willard .” But since Mrs. W. has called our attention to 
the subject, we find that by exact measurement, the page of our 
History is, in printer’s language, just half an em wider than Mrs. 
Willard’s, while the printed margin in the former work is nearly 
one-third the widest. We hope our readers will feel deeply inter¬ 
ested in this matter—at least Mrs. Willard does. But, query : will 
Mrs. Willard inform us how many books, published during the last 
year, have their pages of the same length, or of the same width ? 
We observe, in a work before us, “ Arnold’s Lectures on Modern 
History,” that the pages are exactly the same length as in Mrs. 
Willard’s History. So with Theller’s Canada. We imagine that 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 


15 


the printers and stereotypers have had a great deal to do with 
this kind of imitation. And then, many of them use type from the 
same fonts ! Assuredly they must reform, or Mrs. Willard will 
charge them with imitating her History. 

3d Charge.—“ The reading matter of the abridged History begins 
at page 15 ; so does Mr. Willson’s.” (Mrs W. probably means 
page 13 instead of 15.) So does Olney’s commence on page 13. 
Query, then : who was the inventor of this pforc of commencing a 
book on the thirteenth page ? 

4th Charge.—“ Mr. Willson commences his Colonial History in the 
year 1606, at page 47 ; the abridged History has the same date at 
page 37.” “ From that date to the end, the abridged History occupies 
309 pages, and Mr. Willson’s 309 pages, exclusive of a map,” &c. 
(Appeal, p. 11.) % 

Does our fair authoress mean to convey the idea, that, from the 
commencement of the Colonial History in her work, at page 37, and 
in mine at page 47, each has the same number, or about the same" 
number of pages of narrative history ? And if it were so, would it 
have been “a grievous fault?” But it is not so; and the entire 
statement connected with this subject is a tissue of deception , em¬ 
braced in carefully guarded language, well calculated to lead the 
reader astray. In the first place, Mrs. Willard has no such division 
in her work as Colonial History , (would not the reader infer that 
she had ?) while that is one of the four divisions of mine ; and the 
date to which she refers in her work is in the middle of a chapter, 
and fifty pages before the commencement of Part II. ; while, in my 
work, it is at the commencement of a chapter, and at the com¬ 
mencement of Part II. In the second place, in order to make out 
the same number of pages in both works, subsequent to the dates 
-mentioned, she includes eight pages of matter in her work, uncon¬ 
nected with the narrative, and excludes two similar pages of mine, 
thus making a difference of ten pages, where she attempts to show 
a uniformity. But the substance of her weighty charge is, that I 
have written about as many pages as she has ; and on page 3 of 
the Appeal she has the same charge again in the words, “ Its” 
(Willson’s) “ exact resemblance to mine in size.” But what are 
the facts ? Mrs. Willard’s History contains 316 pages of narrative, 
including the maps and blank pages, 22 in all. Willson’s contains 
334 pages of narrative, including the maps;—a difference of 




16 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARd’s “APPEAL.” 

eighteen pages; —or, omitting the large maps and blank pages in 
both works, there is a difference of thirty-eight pages in the narra¬ 
tive matter. Mrs. Willard’s entire work contains 336 pages;— 
Willson’s, as first published, contained 348 pages; and, as pub¬ 
lished during and subsequent to the autumn of 1846, 358- pages. 
And now what becomes of this charge, trivial though it be, of the 
same number of pages, and of the “ exact resemblance in size” 
between the two works? Is a difference of 10, 18, or 38 pages an 
“ exact resemblance ?” Let the reader judge, then, in this matter, 
as in all the others, of the confidence that is to be placed in the 
assertions of Mrs. Willard’s “ Appeal.” “ Ah uno disce omnia.” 

5th Charge.—In the following language of the Appeal, Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard charges us with another imitation of her History. “ The 
abridged History (Willard’s) is divided into four principal parts : 
Mr. Willson divides his book also info four parts.” (Appeal, p. 11.) 
Wouid not the reader infer from this general assertion, coupled with 
the other charges, that the Parts in the one History are similar to 
those in the other ? If so, then the writer probably designed the 
deception.—But, we reply: so is Olney’s History divided into four 
parts; yet the divisions in Olney’s and, mine are very different 
from those in Mrs. Willard’s. The truth is, I have adopted Olney’s 
divisions, considering them the best that could be made. In no two 
instances are the headings of my divisions the same as Mrs. Wil¬ 
lards, nor in any respect similar thereto. Let the reader observe 
how they compare in their dates. 


Willard. Willson. Differences.. 

Part 1. 1492 to 1643. 1492 to 1607 = 36 years. 

Part II. 1643 to 1763. 1607 to 1775 = 48 “ 


Part III. . . . 1763 to 1789. 1775 to 1789 = 14 “ 

Part IV. . . . 1789 to 1841. 1789 to 1845 = 4 “ 

Probably no one but Mrs. Willard would consider these either 
parallelisms , or plagiarisms. The minor divisions of the works, 
however, differ far more than the above. Not one chapter in Mrs. 
Willard’s entire work corresponds, in its subject, with mine. For 
example, she has 17 chapters in her History, subsequent to the 
year 1789, and the subjects are the various important events, &c., 
that occurred. To correspond with these I have ten chapters, each 
devoted to the events of one administration, commencing with that 




17 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

of Washington. Mrs. Willard commences but one chapter with 
the commencement of an administration. Mrs. W. need not fear 
that any one will ever encroach upon the plan of the divisions of 
her book. 

6th Charge.—Mrs. Willard complains, (Appeal, p. 26,) that the 
printed margins in my History are similar to those in hers, and 
charges me therein, although less formally than in other cases, 
with imitating her plan. To this, however, we give an explicit 
denial. The margins in Mrs. Willard’s History are far more like 
those in “ Grahame’s History of the United States” than mine are 
like either. There are many Histories that have marginal notes 
and dates, to which Mrs. Willard’s are exceedingly similar. Let 
the lady look at Barclay’s Works, Philadelphia edition of 1831, and 
she will find that it has printed margins, with notes and dates on a 
plan exceedingly similar to that in her History. Let her refer, also, 
for information on this subject, to Trumbull’s United States, 
Holmes’s Annals, Williamson’s Maine, &c., &c. She may also ob¬ 
serve something quite similar in many of our law books. It is 
preposterous for her to claim any originality here, and she will show 
extreme ignorance if she does so. But farther, the margins in Mrs. 
W.’s work consist, simply, 1st, of a series of running notes; and, 
2d, of dates. The margins in Willson’s embrace, 1st, all the ques¬ 
tions ; 2d, dates several times more numerous than those in Mrs. 
W.’s, with nearly a thousand references to them from the accom¬ 
panying text; 3d, numerous references to various parts of the work, 
showing the comparative History of the different colonies ; and 4th, 
references, for illustration of the text, to the geographical notes and 
maps. In no respect but in dates are the margins at all similar to 
those in Mrs. Willard’s History; and that Mrs. W. should claim 
any invention here, shows a degree of acquisitiveness almost un¬ 
paralleled. , 

7th Charge.—Mrs. Willard, on page 12 of the “ Appeal,” charges 
us with having pirated the very words of her History in seventeen 
cases; and on page 4 she asserts that we have “ not only attempted 
to pull down her house that we may have her ground to build on , 
but have taken her materials to build with.” This is a grave 
charge,, and the reader will agree with us that it should not have 
been rashly made, and that a few verbal coincidences are not suffi¬ 
cient to sustain the charge of plagiarism, or of using another’s 







18 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARd’s “ APPEAL.” 

materials , with which to erect a structure of our own. To this 
formally alleged charge we shall give its full weight, by repub¬ 
lishing the most important passages which Mrs. Willard has quoted 
from our History, with the parallel passages in her work, from 
which she charges us with having obtained a part of our materials ; 
but we shall take the liberty to restore them, in some instances, 
from their garbled form to the original. We shall also show that 
expressions, the same as, or similar to those upon which the charge 
of plagiarism is based, are found in works older than Mrs. Willard’s 
History ; and that thus the charge which she makes against our 
work, returns with its original force against her own. The two 
columns on the right embrace the most important of the IT parallel¬ 
isms specified by Mrs. W. ; and the column on the left, the parallel 
quotations from prior authors. We have but few works before us 
to refer to, but we believe the coincidences might be carried much 
farther. In the column on the right we have retained the italicized 
phrases exactly as they were given by Mrs. Willard, together with 
the corresponding phrases in the second column. The reader shall 
not be deceived by any evasion of ours, however much he may 
have been by Mrs Willard. 


PRIOR AUTHORS. 

“ Much they marvelled at the 
'playing of the fly and needle, 
which they could see so plainly 
and yet not touch, because of 
the glass that covered them. 
But when he demonstrated by 
that giobe-like jewel the round¬ 
ness of the earth, * * »and 
how the sun did chase the night 
round about the world continu¬ 
ally, * *, they all stood as 
amazed with admiration ” 
Drake’s Ind. Hist. iv. 9. 

(See also Belknap’s Ameri¬ 
can Biography, article John 
Smith.) 


WILLARD. 

“ The Indians to ere con¬ 
founded at the motions of the 
fly-needle, which, on account 
of the mysterious glass, they 
could see, but could not touch. 
I-Ie told them wonderful stories 
of its virtues, and proceeded, 
as he himself relates, ‘by the 
globe-like figure of that jewel, 
to instruct them concerning the 
roundness of the earth, and 
how the sun did chase the 
night round about the world 
continually,’ bv which his au¬ 
ditors toere filled loith pro¬ 
found amazement." p. 40-41. 


WILLSON. 

“ Showing a pocket-compass, 
he explained its wonderful pro¬ 
perties, and, as he himself re¬ 
lates, “ by the globe-like figure 
of that jewel he instructed 
them concerning the round¬ 
ness of the earth, and how the 
sun did chase the night round 
about the earth continually.’ 
In admiration of his superior 
genius, the Indians retained 
him as their prisoner ” p. 50. 


In the above extract from my History, Mrs. Willard has italicized 
only four words as being the same as hers, most of the paragraph 
being an extract from Smith’s own language, (Smith’s Virginia, i. 
158,) with little variation, as given by Drake, and which we have 
as good a right to use as Mrs. Willard. But the entire extract from 
Mrs. Willard’s History is more like the extract which we have made 
from Drake, than ours is like either. 


“ It was evident that he was 
a being of a higher order." 
Bancroft, i. 130, 

“ They already believed him 
a superior being." Frost, p. 


“ Their minds seemed to la¬ 
bor with the greatness of the 
thought that a. being so supe¬ 
rior was in their power;” p. 41. 


“ Regarding him as a being 
of superior order, but uncertain 
whether he should be cherished 
as a friend or dreaded as an 
enemy,” p. 50. 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARd’s “ APPEAL.” 


\ 


19 


PRIOR AUTHORS. 

“ to ascertain, as they said, 
whether he intended them good 
or evil." Drake, iv. 9. 

“ The decision of his fate vms 
referred to Powhatan .” Ban¬ 
croft, i 131. 

“ The Indians referred his 
fate to Powhatan. ’ ’ G rahame, 
1. 43. “ Powhatan relented, 

and set the 'prisoner free." 
Vorcester, p. 217. “ Powhatan 
relented .” Hale, p 17. 

“The sapreme council in 
England was now to be chosen 
oy the stockholders, *_ * the 
governor in Virginia might rule 
the colonists with uncontrolled 
authority.” Bancroft, i. 136. 

“ When near the coast of 
Virginia, a hurricane separated 
the admiral from the rest of 
his fleet; and his vessel was 
stranded on the rocks of the 
Bermudas. A small ketch per¬ 
ished, and seven ships only ar¬ 
rived in Virginia.” Bancroft, i. 
137-8- 


WILLARD. 

“ in order to learn from the 
invisible world, whether their 
prisoner wished them well or 
ill ” p. 41. 

“ The decision of his fate 
seas referred to Powhatan ” 
“ Then the stern savage re¬ 
lented, and Smith was saved." 
p. 41. 


“ The council in England, 
chosen by the stockholders, was 
to appoint a governor, who was 
to rule the colonies with abso¬ 
lute sway.” p. 43. 

“ Arriving at the Bermudas, 
a terrible storm separated the 
fleet. The admiral’s vessel was 
stranded on the rocky shores of 
Bermuda; a small ketch per¬ 
ished, and only seven of tho 
vessels reached Jamestown.” 
p. 43. 


WILLSON. 

"in order to learn from the 
invisible world the character 
and designs of their prisoner.” 
p. 50. 

“ The decision of his fate was 
referred to Powhatan and his 
council.” “The savage chief¬ 
tain relented; Smith was set 
at liberty; and, soon after,” 
&c, p. 50. 


“ This council was authoriz¬ 
ed to appoint a governor, who ’ 
was to reside in Virginia, and 
whose powers enabled him to 
rule the colonists with almost 
despotic sway.” p. 52. 

“ When the fleet had arrived 
near the West Indies, aterrible 
storm dispersed it, and the 
vessel in which were Newport, 
Gates, and Somers, was strand¬ 
ed on the rocks of the Ber¬ 
mudas. A small ketch perish¬ 
ed, and only seven vessels ar¬ 
rived in Virginia.” p. 53. 


Let the reader carefully compare all the above parallelisms, espe¬ 
cially the second and the last, and he will be forcibly impressed with 
the exceeding presumption of our authoress. Observe that, in the last 
example, it is the phrase, “ a small ketch perished ,” that she espe¬ 
cially claims as a part of her own language, and her own materials ; 
but the same is found in Bancroft verbatim, and therefore, accord¬ 
ing to Mrs. Willard’s own principles, she has been guilty of pirating 
the “ literary property” of another.—“ So they hanged Hainan on 
the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai .” 


“ His departure was follow¬ 
ed by disastrous consequences. 
Subordination and industry 
ceased; the Indians became 
hostile and refused the usual 
supplies of provisions. ” Good¬ 
rich p. 34 

“ The provisions of (he col¬ 
ony xoere exhausted." Frost, 
p. 48. 

“ Smith at his departure had 
left more than four hundred 
and ninety persons in the 
colony; in six months, indo¬ 
lence, vice, and famine re¬ 
duced, the number to sixty; 
and these were so feeble and 
dejected that if relief had been 
delayed but ten days longer, 
they also must have utterly 
perished ” Bancroft, i. 14’0. 


“ After his departure all sub¬ 
ordination and industry ceased 
among the colonists. The 
Indians, no longer afraid, har¬ 
assed them and withheld their 
customary supplies. Their 
stores were soon exhausted. 
The domestic animals were 
devoured; and, in two instan¬ 
ces, the act was perpetrated of 
feeding on human flesh. Smith 
left four hundred and ninety 
persons. In six months anar¬ 
chy and vice had reduced the 
number to sixty ; and these 
so feeble and forlorn, that in 
ten days more they must all 
have perished.” p. 44. 


“ On the departure of Smith 
subordination and industry 
ceased; the provisions of the 
colony were soon consumed; 
the Indians became hostile and 
withheld their customary sup¬ 
plies ; the •horrors of famine 
ensued; and, in six months, 
anarchy and vice had reduced 
the number of the colony from 
four hundred and ninety to 
sixty; and these were so feeble 
and dejected, that if relief had 
been delayed a few days longer, 
all must have perished. ” p. 54. 


Let the reader carefully compare the above extracts also, and 
then, considering that Goodrich and Bancroft have the priority in 
point of time, decide with what propriety Mrs. Willard can charge 
us with having plagiarized from her. Should not those who live in 
vlass houses beware of throwing stones ? And should not those 
who claim superior virtue carefully watch their own conduct? 



20 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD ? S “ APPEAL. n 


PRIOR AUTHORS. 

“ Gates conducted to the New 
World six ships with three 
hundred emigrants.” Ban¬ 
croft, i. 144. Also Chalmers, 
p. 33. 

“ His descendants are among 
some of the most respectable 
families in Virginia .” Trum¬ 
bull’s U. S , p. 64. 

“ She died when about to 
return to America, leaving one 
son, from whom are descended 
some of the most respectable 
families in Virginia ” Hale, 

p. 20. 

“ She left one son: from 
whom are sprung some oj the 
most respectable families in 
Virginia ” Grimshavv, p. 33. 


WILLARD. 

“In less than four months 
Sir ThomasGates arrived with 
six ships and three hundred 
emigrants .” p. 45. 


“ Her son survived and rear¬ 
ed an offspring which is per¬ 
petuated in some of the best 
families in Virginia.” p. 45. 


WILLSON. 

“ Early in September Sir 
Thomas Gates arrived with 
six ships and three hundred 
emigrants, and assumed the 
government of the colony,” 
&c. p. 56. 

“She left one son, from whom 
are descended, some of the most 
respectable families in Vir¬ 
ginia” p 56. 


We have two remarks to make on the above extracts. First, we 


desire the reader to note the far-famed beauty of Mrs. Willard’s 
style. Who ever before heard that an offspring could, be perpetuated 
from generation to generation !! This is stranger ‘ than was ever 
dreamed of in our philosophy.’ Secondly, what Mrs. Willard 
seriously charges us with having pirated from her, was the original 
property of Trumbull, or Hale, or Grimshaw, or of some other 
author prior to her; so that again the good lady must relinquish 
her claims to originality. That she should claim her own, is not 
strange; but, “ ’tis passing strange,” that, to advance her “ literary 
fame” she should claim the “ literary property” of other people. 


“ Universal discontent was 
excited by his administration.” 
Grahame, B. i. ch. 2 
His vices, &c., “ led him to 
defraud the Company, as well 
as to oppress the colonists.” 
Bancroft, i 152. 

“ In order to attach than 
still more to the country,” 
Goodrich, p. 36. 

“ To produce this desirable 
attachment to the country,” 
Hale, p. 21. Also Chalmers, 
p. 46. 


“Argali governed with so 
much rigor as to excite uni¬ 
versal discontent. Not only 
did he play the tyrant over the 
colonists, but he cheated the 
Company.” p. 45. 

“ Jh order to attach the 
colonists more entirely to their 
new settlements,” p. 46. 


“In 1617, the office of deputy 
governor was entrusted to Ar¬ 
gali, who ruled with such tyran¬ 
ny as to excite universal dis¬ 
content. He not only oppressed 
the colonists, but defrauded tire 
Company.” p. 56 
“ In order to attach them 
still more to the country,” 


Here is the very weighty matter of four words, the same in both 
works, and these four words Mrs. W. claims as a part of her 
materials. It appears, however, that we have used the emct words 
of Goodrich, and nearly the same as Hale, but yet Mrs. W. claims 
that we should pay her the penalty of the trespass. Her claims 
to “literary property” are rather exorbitant. 


“A Hutch ship from the coast 
of Guinea, arriving in .lames 
River, sold to the planters a 
part of her cargo of negroes.” 
Grahame, p. 71, vol. i. 

“ This was the commence¬ 
ment, in the English American 
colonies, of a traffic,” &c. 
Hale, p 22. Also Chalmers, 
p. 49, and' Bancroft, i. 189 


“ A Dutch ship from Africa 
arriving at Jamestown, apart 
of her cargo of negroes wa3 
purchased by the colony This 
is the commencement of negro 
slavery in the United States ” 
p. 46. 


“ In the month of August 
1820, a Dutch man-of-war en¬ 
tered James River, and landed 
twenty negroes for sale. This 
was the commencement of 
negro slavery in the English 
colonies p. 57. 


A. 'REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 


21 


The coincident words are italicized, as Mrs. “Willard had marked 
tnem. Had Mrs. W. ever thought of the impropriety of calling 
this the commencement of negro slavery in the United States f 
The present States were then English colonies. 

We have thus copied from Mrs. Willard’s “ Appeal” twelve out 
of the seventeen so-called u plagiarisms ,” so seriously charged 
against us by that lady. Those we have not noticed are the 1st in 
order, the 6th and 7th, the 9th, and the 12th. The first has parallel 
passages in Bancroft, i. p. 268, where, the reader will see, we prin¬ 
cipally obtained our materials. See also Drake, B. ii.; Winter- 
bothanry i. 164; Morse’s New England, p. 18, &c. The 6th and 
7th are garbled extracts, and amount to nothing. Parallel passages 
of the 9th may be found in Bancroft, i. 137,—and of'the 12th in 
Bancroft, i. 146. 

We farther remark, in relation to this subject, that the parallelisms 
-quoted, are found, with but one exception, in a part only of the early 
history of Virginia ; and that the matter from page 41 to page 46, 
inclusive, of Mrs. Willard’s History, in which that lady claims so 
much originality, is scarcely anything but an abridged transcript 
from Bancroft, vol. i. pages 180 to 156 ; whereas, the more extended 
account in my work, differing in many particulars from Bancroft, 
shows the additional use of the excellent works of Chalmers and 
Grahame, and of many other writers. The coincidences here found, 
however, between Mrs. Willard’s History and mine, are much less 
striking than the garbled extracts in the “ Appeal” would lead the 
reader to believe*; and much less striking than between Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard and Bancroft, direct; but where the former do exist, they may 
be traced to the circumstance that both of us made use of the same 
original materials. Mrs. Willard should have tried, at least, to show 
some cases of parallelism with some of her original matter.—We 
have compared a great portion of the remainder of the'two 'books, 
and find only two or three additional cases that are at all parallel, 
and these are instances in which the expressions have been handed 
down through so many writers, that they may be considered as 
actually stereotyped in American history. The result of this investi¬ 
gation then is, that in every instance complained of by Mrs. Willard, 
excepting two the most trivial, which we have alluded to, we have 
found parallel passages in authors who wrote prior to her; showing 
that, if her ridiculous charges against us amount to plagiarism, it is 


22 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARDS “ APPEAL.’'* 


not plagiarism jf/wraAer,—that she is guilty of a like fault, whatever 
it be, in the very instances charged upon us; and, moreover, we 
have fully proved, either that she is unable to distinguish between 
her own “ literary property,” and that of others, or that she has 
labored to deceive the public by pretensions which she knew to be 
unfounded. Let her take whichever horn of the dilemma she 
chooses. Scylla is on the one side, and Charybdis on the other. 
Would it not be well for this lady, before she makes any farther 
charges of piracy, either against ourselves or others, to examine a 
little more fully the materials used in the compilation of her own 
work ? Or would she have us make the investigation for her ? 
We can devote but little time or space to such a subject, but have 
no objection to let the reader know what “ historical research” 
might accomplish. We will therefore institute a brief comparison 
between Mrs. Willard, and other writers, in addition to the paral¬ 
lelisms which she has quoted. 


With a fleet he was conducting home, from 
a successful enterprise against the Spaniards in 
the West Indies." Grahame, p. 20. 

“ Immediately after his return he was chosen 
President by the council ” Grahame, p. 43. 

“ The wanderers, on their return, persevered in 
the more fatal assurance that Florida xoas the 
richest country in the icorld ” Bancroft, i. 41. 

“ At last an accidental explosion of gunpow¬ 
der disabled him, by inflicting wounds which the 
surgical skill of Virginia could not relieve Dele¬ 
gating his authority to Percy, he embarked for 
England ” Bancroft, k 138. 

“ Mendez invited them to rely on Ms compas¬ 
sion." Bancroft, i 71, 

“ Yet previous to his departure his daughter, 
Eleanor Dare, * * * gave birth to a female 
child, the first offspring of Ehglish parents on 
the s.oil of the United States ” Bancroft, i 105.. 

“ The admiral of the fleet was Newport, who, 
with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers,, 
■was authorized to administer the affairs of the 
colony till the arrival of Lord Delaware.” Ban¬ 
croft, i. 137.' 


Who was returning from a successful expe¬ 
dition against the Spaniards in the West 
Indies." Willard, p. 35. 

Immediately on his return, he was chosen 
President of the council." Willard, p. 42. 

“ They, however, insisted that Florida was the 
richest country in the toorld.” Willard, p. 2S. 

“At length an accidental explosion of gun- 
poioder so injured Smith, that no medicarskili 
there could properly manage his case, and dele¬ 
gating his authority to Percy, he returned to 
England." Willard, p. 44. 

“ Mendez invited them to come to him, and 
trust to his compassion." Willard, p. 30. 

“Before he departed, his daughter, Mrs Dare, 
gave birth to a female infant, the- first child of 
English parents born in America.” Willard. 
u.36. 

“ As Lord Delaware was not ready to embark 
with the fleet, the admiral, with Sir Thomas 
Gates and Sir George Scnners, was empowered 
to govern the colony until his arrival." Willard, 
p. 137. 


We might extend these parallelisms, if necessary, but the only 
purpose for which we have quoted them, is, not to depreciate Mrs. 
Willard’s History thereby, but to show the criminal or ignorant 
folly, whichever it may be, of her charges against us. Could the 
lady hope to escape detection after writing such an appeal as she 
has written ? Mrs. Willard says, indeed, “ When I make some 
claim to originality it will be recognized . 77 We recognize her 
claims, for they are numerous, and wide reaching, and asserted with 
no lack of boldness ; but we hope it no crime if we have not been 
able to recognize the originality of which she boasts, especially as 
regards the language which she calls her own. She must “ try 


23 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 

I 

again,” if she would convince the public that she is a paragon of 
literary honesty. 

Having now followed Mrs. Willard through this matter, it may 
not be inappropriate to add a few words on the general subject of 
historical plagiarism. History deals mainly with events ; and as it 
is not the province of the historian to create facts, but to relate those 
already existing, so fidelity often requires that he should state them 
in the very language in which he finds them recorded, either by the 
actors themselves, or by those early writers who had the best oppor¬ 
tunities of verifying their truth. Who would attempt to give a 
faithful and vivid sketch of Roman History without adopting some 
of the very expressions used by Livy ? Goldsmith thought it not 
beneath him, in giving a record of events, often to use the very lan¬ 
guage of Rome’s best early historian. Bancroft, in his excellent 
American History, has drawn largely upon the pages of Chalmers 
and other early writers, not only for facts, but, in some instances, for 
the very words in which they are recorded.* In truth, the narrative 


* Any one who chose to deal “ in this small way,” (see Mrs. Willard’s Appeal, 
p. 9,) might easily fill a volume with “ parallelisms ” like the following. 


“ This is the sad epoch of the introduction of 
African slaves into the colonies.” Chalmers, 
p. 49. 

“ The Treasurer and Council dispatched Sir 
Thomas Gates with six large ships, carrying three 
hundred adventurers.” Chalmers, p. 33 

“The price of a wife was estimated, first, at a 
hundred and twenty, and afterwards at a hun¬ 
dred and fifty pounds of tobacco.” Grahame, i 72. 

“ Which is the great and civil basis of all the 
future patents and plantations that divide this 
country. ” Prince’s Chronology of New England. 


“ This is indeed the sad epoch of the introduc¬ 
tion of negro slavery within the English colonies.” 
Bancroft, i. 189. 

'■ Gates conducted to the New World six ships 
with three hundred emigrants.” Bancroft, i. 160. 

“ The price rose from one hundred and twenty 
to one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco.” 
Bancroft, i, 173. 

“ This is the civil basis of all the patents and 
plantations which divide the New England 
States.” Trumbull’s U. 8., p. 70. 


By an examination of the following parallel passages from Goodrich and Wil¬ 
lard, it would seem, at first sight, that there had been some copying on the one 
side or on the other; but yet, on referring to earlier writers, we find that the 
same or similar passages have passed through many hands, with various little alter¬ 
ations ; so that, if there has been any plagiarizing in the matter, it is now ex¬ 
tremely difficult to ascertain either who was the original plagiarist, or the extent 
of the plagiarisms which each committed. 


Goodrich, page 42. 

“ In November, 1620, the same month in wliich 
the Puritans arrived on the American coast, 
James I. issued a patent granting to the Duke of 
Lenox, Ferdinando Gorges, and others, styling 
themselves ‘The Council of Plymouth, in the 
county of Devon, for planting and governing New 
England in America,’ the territory between the 
40th and 48th degrees of north latitude, and ex¬ 
tending through the mainland from sea to sea. 


“ This territory had, until this time, been 
known by the name of North Virginia; but now 


Willard, page 61. 

“ In November, 1620, the same month in which 
the Pilgrims arrived on the American coast, 
James I issued a charter, or patent, to the duke 
of Lenox, the Marquises of Buckingham and 
Hamilton, the Earls of Arundel and Warwick, 
Sir Ferdinand Gorges, and thirty-four associates : 
styling them the ' Grand Council of Plymouth, 
for planting and governing New England, in 
America.’ This patent granted them the terri¬ 
tory between the fortieth and forty-eighth degree 
of north latitude, and extending throughout the 
main land from sea to sea. 

“ This territory, which had been previously 
called North Virginia, now received the name of 



24 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL.” 


part of Bancroft’s History is mainly a condensation of the materials 
found in some hundreds of the works of earlier writers. And is this 
plagiarism ? On the contrary, is any other position than that of a 
gleaner of facts already recorded, a tenable one for an historian to 
assume ? By the comparisons that we have made it has been clearly 
shown that this is the only ground on which Mrs. Willard can rest 
her cause of literary honesty with any degree of security.' She 
could not have been a faithful historian without oftentimes using the 
very language of the authors on whom she relies for authority, and 
if any other principle were adopted, then the charge of plagiarism 
would justly lie against her to an alarming degree. 

It is amusing to see the extent to which Mrs. Willard carries 
the imaginary parallel between her History and mine ; for she so 
entirely overdoes the matter, that it would seem credulity itself 
could no longer be imposed upon. On the 24th page of the Appeal 
we find the following lamentation : “ Of all the proceedings of Mr. 
Willson in regard to my Histories, nothing affects my mind so un¬ 
pleasantly as his imitation of my style f and a “ poor imitation too.” 
This is, assuredly, “the most unkindest cut of all.” The charge 
of making a good imitation would have been bad enough. After we 
had occupied some five pages of our Review with rich specimens 
of Mrs. Willard’s style, then to be told, “ that is just the way you 
write, Mr. W.,” “our styles are very similar indeed,” would have 
been rather more than our equanimity could bear, if it came not from 
a woman. A person generally imitates what he commends, not what 
he condemns ; and the policy would be suicidal in the extreme for 
a writer to prejudice the public against that very style of writing 
which he himself had assumed. 


it received the name of New England, by royal 
authority. The patent thus issued by the Council 
of Plymouth, was the foundation of all the subse¬ 
quent grants, under which the colonies of New 
England were settled.” 

Page 49. 

“ By this patent the latter came into pos¬ 
session of the country from the Potomac to the 
40th degree of north latitude This grant cov¬ 
ered the land which had long before been granted 
to Virginia, as what was now granted to Lord 
Baltimore was in part subsequently given to 
William Penn. * * 

“ Lord Baltimore appointed his brother. Leo¬ 
nard Calvert, governor of the province, who with 
about two hundred planters, mostly Roman 
Catholics, left England near the close of this 
year, and arriving, in 1634, at the mouth of the 
river Potomac, purchased of the Indians Yoam- 
aco, a considerable village, where they formed a 
settlement, to which they gave the name of St. 
Mary.” 


New England, by royal authority. From this 
patent were derived all the subsequent grants 
unto which the New England colonies were 


Page 78. 

By this patent he held the country from the 
Totomac to the 40th degree of north latitude : 
and thus, by a mere act of the crown, what had 
long before been granted to Virginia, was now 
taken away; as what was now granted was 
subsequently given to Penn. * * 

i ‘‘b or(1 T Baltimore appointed as governor his 
brother, Leonard Calvert, who with two hundred 
emigrants, sailed near the close of 1633 , and ar¬ 
rived at the Potomac early in 1634. Here they 
purchased of the natives, Yamaco, one of their 
settlements, to which was given the name of SL 
Mary.” 




A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD S “ APPEAL.” 


25 


Mrs. Willard says (Appeal, p. 25,) that when, at one time, she 
was reading from my History, she thought it was her own (!) until 
she was mortified to find that she should make a man speak after 
she had killed him ! “ I then,” she continues, “ perceived it was 

Mr. Willson’s book, and not my own, that I was reading.” In this 
way the lady perpetrates a gross slander —coming as near to an 
untruth as we can well specify. She alludes to the account of the 
death of Wolfe, in our History, p. 190-1. We say that he “ died 
on the field of battle and then, immediately after, we give the cir¬ 
cumstances of his death, the same as though we had said he was 
killed in the battle of Quebec, by a wound which he received, &e .; 
the circumstances following the naked statement of his being killed. 
But we will quote the passage alluded to by Mrs. Willard, not for 
the purpose of defending ourselves, but as an additional evidence of 
the exceeding audacity of the v/riter of the “ Appeal.” 

“ General Wolfe died on the field of battle, but he lived long enough to be in¬ 
formed that he had gained the victory. Conveyed to the rear, and supported by a 
few attendants, while the agonies of death were upon him he heard the distant 
cry, ‘ They run, they run.’ Raising his drooping head, the dying hero anxiously 
asked, ‘Who run!’ Being informed that it was the French, ‘ Then,’ said he, ‘ I 
die contented.’ ” 

From such materials Mrs.. Willard manufactures her only criti¬ 
cisms upon our style ! But as we are desirous of vindicating our¬ 
selves from Mrs. Willard’s serious charge of imitation, we hope the 
lady will excuse us if we make a few more extracts from her Ame¬ 
rican Histories,— after the revision which they have recently passed 
through. For these extracts let not the lady again charge us with 
attempting “ to persuade the public that her style is bad .” We 
simply make a fair and honorable defence ; and if the public can¬ 
not find in our work any imitations of the following peculiarities of 
Mrs. Willard’s style, then we hope to be acquitted of the charge 
brought against us. The following are taken from the editions of 
Mrs. Willard’s works, published the present year, 1847. 

The first extract is the commencement of Mrs. Willard’s larger 
History of the United States. The italics are our own. 

“ The country of which our history treats, is that comprised within the extensive 
boundaries of ^;he United States of America. This appellation we shall exchange 
as the convenience of language may reqdire, for that of the Republic of America, 
wr the simple name America. This single expression is the style assumed in the 


26 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARd’s “ APPEAL.” 


bill of rights, the first act of our country’s sovereignty; and it forms the only pan 
which is a proper name of that used in every State paper promulgated since.” 

If the reader can make out anything from the latter part of this 
extract, he can do more than we can. We have studied it pro¬ 
foundly, and find it beyond our powers of analysis. The next ex¬ 
tract is the closing paragraph in the Abridged History. 

“ Many were the prayers that God would forgive our national sins; and that he 
would not withdraw from us the favor which he had shown to our fathers, but 
that in meekness, rulers may be sought out who ‘ fear God and hate covetousness;’ 
and when in power, they may, like Washington’ resist its corrupting influences.” 

We would ask—is there any connection between the last clause, 
and the preceding parts of the sentence ? If so, what is the con¬ 
necting word ? We now give some miscellaneous examples. 

“ In him were united a rare combination of extraordinary qualities.”—Large 
work, p. 9. 

“ Sixty millions of her national debt was discharged.”—Abr. p. 214. 

“ The second (party) which was numerous, were in favor of a bank.”-—Large 
work, p. 114. 

“ The Tripolitans send an army which were defeated in two engagements.”— 
Abr. p. 274. 

“After the fall of Napoleon, a formidable army of fourteen thousand, who had 
fought under the Duke of Wellington, were embarked at Bordeaux for Canada.’ 
—Abr. p. 293. 

Thus we have, an army, who had fought, were embarked. 

“ There were a band of pirates, called the Barratarians, from their island of Bar- 
rataria.”—Abr. p. 300. 

“ A detachment of forty soldiers, rfear the river Apalachicola, were fired upon by 
a body of Indians, who lay in ambush.”—Abr. p. 306. 

“ Pontiac thought, that as the English had expelled the French, if the Indians 
could exterminate them before they were fully established, they would again be 
lords of the forest.”—Abr. p. 171. 

To what does the pronoun them refer ? 

“ Their chief was called £ the Great Sun,’ and like the Peruvians, they had fire 
which they regarded as sacred, and perpetually watched .”—Large work, p. 8. 

“ Maumee and Mackinaw were among the places, which were thus taken, and 
the garrisons surprised and slaughtered.^ —Abr. p. 171. 

“ General Gage was made Governor of Massachusetts, in the place of Hutchin¬ 
son. He had been removed from his office, in consequence of his unpopularity 
occasioned by the exposure of letters,” &c. 

If the words, The latter, had been substituted in the place of the 
pronoun “ He,” the obscurity would have been removed. 

“ He put him in irons, and confined him for a day to prison.”—Abr. p. 321. 


27 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARd’s “ APPEAL.” 

“ A national bank, was, during this session, recommended by Mr. Hamilton, 
and passed through Congress .”—Abr. p. 259. 

The youthful pupil might innocently infer, that, in some way 
unknown to him, the hank itself was “ passed through Congress,” 
just as the writer states it. 

“Rhode Island had refused to send delegates to the convention, which formed 
the constitution; and neither that State or North Carolina had accepted it at the 
time of its adoption.”—Abr. p. 259. 

Mrs. Willard almost universally follows neither by or. Thus— 

“ Neither civil or military organization had been neglected.”—Large work, p.37. 

“ At every charge the British artillery fell into the hands of the Americans, who 
could neither carry it off, or turn it onthe enemy.”—Large work, p. 200. 

“ Delegates from each of the New England provinces, New York, Pennsylva¬ 
nia, and Maryland, accordingly met at Albany. After deliberating, they accepted 
a plan of confederation, which was drawn up by. Beniamin Franklin, on the 4th 
of July, 1754.” 

There is some unnecesssary obscurity here, arising from a neg¬ 
ligent arrangement, very characteristic-of Mrs.. Willard’s style. 
The pupil might infer, that New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary¬ 
land, belonged to the “New England provinces;” and that the 
“ plan of confederation” was drawn up by Franklin on the 4th of 
July, 1754. We suggest the following as an improvement. 

4 Delegates from each of the New England provinces, and from 
New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, accordingly met at 
Albany. After deliberating, on the 4th of July 1754 they ac¬ 
cepted a plan of confederation, which had been drawn up by Ben¬ 
jamin Franklin.’ 

We notice the following among the questions in the large work : 

“ Who were the early inhabitants of this region found to resemble'?”—p. 409. 
“ Who did he send out to colonize them'?”—p.4Il. “ Who did he first send outl’ 
Same. “ Were either of the judges betrayed by the colonists.”—p. 417. 

But we have no desire to pursue this subject farther, and never 
should we have brought these extracts before the public but in self- 
defence—to exculpate ourselves from the charge of having slan¬ 
dered Mrs. Willard’s History in our former Review. We presume, 
however, that every candid reader is satisfied that our Review of 
1845 did Mrs. Willard’s Histories no injustice by its brief com¬ 
ments on the style of the writer. When, at the request of the 
New Jersey Education Society, we consented to write a Report on 
the subject of American Histories, we plainly saw the situation in 


28 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD^ “ APPEAL/ 


which our position as reviewer would afterwards place us; in ref¬ 
erence to which we used the following language: “The task that 
we have undertaken, is, of itself, a delicate one; and the more so 
from the circumstance that the reviewer exposes himself to become 
the reviewed.”—( Review , p. 1.) Yet, as a reviewer, who had once 
assumed the task, we felt that we had no right ‘to pass by .the lit¬ 
erary demerits of a certain History without comment; and wef felt 
the more impelled to take the course we did, from the circumstance 
that, in the language of the Review, “ Mrs. Willard’s History had 
received the highest commendations, both for its accuracy, and its 
literary merits,”—qualities the very opposite of those we found it 
to possess. Why did we not criticise, with equal severity, the pop¬ 
ular works of Hale and Goodrich? Simply, we reply, because 
they did not furnish the materials. Yet. those works, we then sup¬ 
posed, and still believe, to have a circulation far greater than Mrs. 
Willard’s History ever had; so that, if a spirit of rivalry had in¬ 
fluenced us, as Mrs. Willard intimates, we should have directed our 
batteries mainly against those from whom we anticipated the great¬ 
est opposition. 

We have now before us the publisher’s pamphlet of recommen¬ 
dations of Mrs. Willard’s History, under date of 1843 ; and it was 
the reading of these recommendations that first led us to a special 
examination of the style in which the History is written. We had 
expected to find “ precision, grace, and beauty” of language, in a 
work^so lauded for these qualities, and we felt indignant that we 
had been so grossly deceived. We learned, however, to put little 
faith, hereafter, in recommendations of school books, and to con¬ 
sider them about as much a u matter of course,” as the closing of an 
ordinary epistle, in which the writer subscribes himself, “ Your 
obedient servant.” Among the recommendations of Mrs. Willard’s 
History we found one from a teacher, describing it as a work in 
which the “ harmony, beauty, and strength of the English language 
are elegantly displayed.” Another said, “ Its perspicuous style, 
methodical arrangement, &e., render it the most perfect work of 
the kind with which I am acquainted.” A county superintendent 
of schools said of it, that, “ for arrangement, precision, grace, and 
beauty ,” it was “ not equalled by any work with which he was ac¬ 
quainted.” A New England journal, high in the confidence of the 
literary public* after eulogizing it in terms .the strongest that the 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 29 

language affords, and placing it oil an equality with Bancrofts 
valuable work, said of it, “ft is expressed in a style distinguished 
for its clearness, precision, grace, and beauty.” 

On the eredit attached to such recommendations, the work before 
ue was introduced into our schools, as one of the best specimens of 
classical purity of style that the English language afforded, and the 
youth of our land were directed to study it well, if they would 
aspire after literary excellence! Could we then, in the capacity 
of reviewer, avoid speaking on this same subject—the Literary 
Merits of Mrs. Willard’s Histories ? Had not the matter already 
been made public property, by Mrs. W. and her publishers, by the 
extra efforts made by them to laud the beauties of the work ; and 
were we not justified in making extracts from it, that the public 
might see for themselves, in what this so highly eulogized style 
consisted ? And in view of recommendations, such as those from 
which we have copied, we will remark, in closing this subject, that 
if such be the intelligence, or the integrity of our critics, we may 
indeed blush for American literature ; and if such be the fair deal¬ 
ing which an author is to expect from them, well may he, with up¬ 
lifted hands, exclaim against them, u Procul, Oprocul, este profani 
your deceitful words fall from lying lips, and your praises are the 
kisses that betray me. 

There is scarcely anything that we ourselves can say of our 
work, that Mrs. Willard does not declare applicable to her own. In 
the nreface of our work we speak of the utility of our marginal 
notes, but Mrs. Willard abruptly takes the words from our mouth, 
with, “ Mr. Willson’s language exactly applies to mine.” “ My 
History it is which does this, but his does not.” Mrs. Willard ap¬ 
pears to be greatly annoyed by the idea that our style is an imita¬ 
tion of hers. If we had the slightest suspicion of any such sim¬ 
ilarity between our works, we should be far more deeply troubled 
than she is. 

Yet, according to Mrs. Willard’s account, it is the striking “sim¬ 
ilarity” between her History and mine, together with the “ slander¬ 
ous” Review, that has done, and is still doing her work so much 
injury—displacing it where hitherto introduced, andj doubtless, 
greatly abridging its sale. Thus it would seem that the “bad 
counterfeit,” as it is called, is readily taken into favor, while the 
genuine coin lies neglected. This is certainly no compliment to 

3 * 



30 * A REPLY TO MR3. WILLARd’s “ APPEAL.” 

the discernment of the educational public. How could it happen 
that the Public School Committees of New York and Cincinnati 
should be so deceived, and imposed upon, by a “ bad counterfeit” 
and a “ slanderous pamphlet,” as unanimously to adopt my History 
after Mrs. Willard’s had been long known in both places ? Why 
has my History been adopted as a text-book in the New York State 
Normal School, if it is but a bad counterfeit ?* But, forsooth, the 
discerning public has been deceived by Mr. Willson’s criticisms ! 
Yet, during two years, only two thousand copies of the Review 
have been circulated, and during the first year our History attained 
a circulation of more than thirteen thousand copies. Was this 
circulation caused by the Review ? If such be its potency, what 
must be its effect when we attach to it another “ Additional list af 
errors,” from a third “ gleaning,” in which Mrs. Willard’s History 
is not overlooked, and circulate, instead of one or two thousand 
copies, some forty or fifty thousand ? 

Before closing this article we have a few words to say to “ A. S. 
Barnes & Co.,” the publishers of Mi's. Willard’s History. We re¬ 
joice that, in the following matter, we have men to deal with, for 
now we breathe freely. Following Mrs. Willard’s Appeal, and in 
the same pamphlet, we observe seven pages under the head of “ Re¬ 
commendations of Willard’s United States,” all which recommenda¬ 
tions were published by you, gentlemen, in pamphlet form, in the 
year 1843, two years before Willson’s United States made its ap¬ 
pearance. Many of these you have now republished without any 
date; and to close the list, among those thus republished, and se¬ 
lected from the list, you have the following in a very conspicuous 
position. 

“ The Public School Committee of Cincinnati have recently adopted 
this work, (Mrs. Willard’s,) as a text book for their schools.” 

You carefully avoid telling, in words, when this was done, but 
you would have the reader believe it a recent transaction, for 
the purpose of showing the favor which Mrs. Willard’s book has 

* On the 1st day of June, 1847, (since the Appeal was published,} the commis¬ 
sioners of the Thirteenth Ward School, in the city of New York, adopted and in¬ 
troduced Willson’s “ History of the United States” and “ Juvenile American His¬ 
tory” into that school. This is one of the largest schools in the city, numbering 
no less than 800 scholars.— Publishers. 


31 


A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “ APPEAL.” 

received since Willson’s has been before the public. Is not this a 
fair inference ? But what are the facts of the case ? You cannot 
but know them, gentlemen, however much you may strive to con¬ 
ceal them from others. Read then the following from the March 
number of the Western School Journal, published at Cincinnati: 

“ On the 22d of February 1847, Tee Board of Trustees and 
Visitors of the Common Schools of Cincinnati, unanimously 
adopted Willson’s History of the United States for use in their 
schools.” The following is the resolution which was thus, unani¬ 
mously adopted : 

“ Resolved , That the United States History, by Marcius Willson, be and the 
same is hereby adopted by the Board of Trustees and Visitors, as the text book to 
be used in the Common Schools of Cincinnati, in place of the Abridgment, by 
Mrs. Willard.” 

Thus the reader will perceive that Mrs. Willard’s History has 
been recently rejected , instead of having been “ recently adopted,” 
in Cincinnati.—When a publishing house resorts to an imposition 
so gross and despicable as that attempted to be practised by you, 
gentlemen, neither common courtesy nor Christian charity any 
longer demands that we should either suppress or conceal our indig¬ 
nation. But we leave you to settle this matter, as best you can, 
with your own consciences. 

We might with propriety address the publishers a few words 
concerning the authorship of the “ Appeal.” Had it not been for 
the gross imposition in which we have detected them, we should 
have been surprised that they should allow a document of such 
a character, and written in such a spirit, to go forth to the public 
with the name of their firm upon it. The “ Appeal” indeed pur¬ 
ports to have been written by a woman ; but there is a striking 
dissimilarity between its style and that of any other of Mrs. Wil¬ 
lard’s published writings. It contains so many misrepresentations, 
direct or implied—so much ignorance, even of “ Mrs. Willard’s 
History”—so much pettifogging, and so little reasohing, that we 
would fain believe, for the honor of the lady whose name it bears, 
that the manuscript never passed through her hands. We are 
strongly inclined to believe that it Was written by some one, who, 
“ for a small consideration ,” was willing, for , the time being, not 
only to change his sex, but to sell his reputation also. 

In conclusion, we request the reader into whose hands this 



32 A REPLY TO MRS. WILLARD’S “APPEAL.” 

pamphlet may fall, to do us the justice of reading Mrs. Willard’s “ Ap¬ 
peal,” that he may not ignorantly accuse us of unwarranted severity- 
We also request him to read our “Review of American Histories,” ap¬ 
pended to this pamphlet, that he may know for himself that it contains 
nothing but fair and honorable criticism, and that he may the more plainly 
perceive how totally unfounded are Mrs. Willard’s complaints of injus¬ 
tice. With the Review let him take any copy of Mrs. Willard’s His¬ 
tory published prior to 1845, and another published in 1847, and by com¬ 
paring the two he will be enabled to judge wherein Mrs. Willard has 
availed herself of our criticisms in correcting her book. Let him exam¬ 
ine, also, the following hitherto unpublished portion of our Report to the 
New Jersey Society in 1845, pointing out additional errors found in Mrs. 
Willard’s and other Histories at that time, and still retained wholly in 
Mrs. Willard’s at this present date ;—and when, some years hence, Mrs. 
Willard shall have made another partial correction of her book by the 
aid of our criticism, if she shall have the presumption to do it, let him see 
to it, that she does not dupe the public by the statement that ‘ Mr. Will¬ 
son’s pamphlet Reply of eighteen hundred and forty-eight , contains 
“ about forty erroneous accusations.’ 

We have now done with the “ Appeal”—its author, and publishers. 
Undeterred by the fear of giving offence by the just severity of honorable 
criticism, we shall now proceed to make farther extracts of “ additional 
errors,” from our manucript Report of 1845. We ask the authors criti¬ 
cised to examine them with candor, and if convinced that our researches 
have detected errors ■ in their works, they have our full permission, and 
our request , to adopt our corrections.* If we shall be convicted of error, 
we shall ever be thankful to enjoy the same favor that we gratuitously 
bestow upon others. We have no apprehension that any respectable 
writer, who has compiled a History, will abuse us for the matters con¬ 
tained in the following portion of the Report. Let him deal with our 
criticisms, with all the severity that truth can command. Thus, in time, 
by the investigations of many, we may gradually remove from our His¬ 
tories the many defects and errors which now mar their pages, and finally 
arrive at a standard of historical accuracy, far above that yet attained bv 
any writer. 

M. WILLSON. 

Allen’s Hill, Ontario Co., N. Y., May 29th, 1847. 


Note. —By the Publishers. — The additional list of errors, spoken 
of by Mr. Willson above, which is now in our possession, and which 
Wbuld occupy some eight or ten additional pages, of small type, is 
for the present withheld, on our own responsibility, as having ’no 
special connection with this Reply. This, we should state, is in op¬ 
position to the special request of Mr. Willson. The list may here¬ 
after be given to the public, should circumstances require it. 


* We wouI T however, except Mrs. Willard and her publishers from this gra¬ 
tuity, and we hope that, hereafter, they will not be found plao-iarizino- from^our 
Review, the materials for farther corrections of their History. ° 




WILLSON’S AMERICAN HISTORY. 


From the u Syracuse Daily Journal P 

American History, comprising Historical Sketches of the Indian Tribes; a 
description of American Antiquities, with an inquiry into their origin, and 
the origin of the Indian Tribes ; History of the United States, with appen¬ 
dices showing the connection with European History; History of the pres¬ 
ent British Provinces ; History of Mexico; and History of Texas, brought 
down to the time of its admission into the United States. By Marcus Will- 
son, author of School History of the United States, Comprehensive Chart of 
American History, etc., etc. New-York : Published by Mark H. Newman 
& Co., JS47. 

We are indebted to the publishers for a copy of this valuable work. The 
study of American History is of too much importance to allow so excellent a 
contribution to this department of letters, to pass without being appreciated. 
So accurate and so well written a work on American. History cannot fail to 
confer lasting benefits upon society. 

Mr. Willson has been indefatigable in his efforts to explore new regions, and 
has drawn from original sources a great many facts which would have been 
lost, were it not for his determination to make a full and reliable history inde¬ 
pendent of his contemporaries. In some respects he differs from other histori¬ 
cal writers. For instance, “ it is stated in some of our text-books that the first 
land discovered by the Cabots was Newfoundland; that the Cabots sailed in 
1494 or ; 95; that they discovered land on the 11th, or as others say the 14th 
of June; that De Soto’s survivors sailed down the Mississippi and directly 
to Cuba; that the Cherokees belong to the Mobitian family ; that Port Royal 
was the oldest Christian settlement, &c.” A large number of such errors have 
been corrected in the work before us, and should gain for it, on that account, 
a prompt introduction into our public and private libraries. 

In addition to a correct description of events, we find marginal maps on the 
same page, which, enable the reader to locate with accuracy, the incidents in 
our country's history. 

Mr. Willson’s style is excellent, and in a peculiar manner imparts life to 
historical subjects. We most cordially recommend this as the most accurate 
and well-arranged American. History now before the public. 

In addition to this American, History, containing 672 octavo pages, Mr. 
Willson has brought out a Juvenile History of the U. S. for Schools, 160 
pages ; and a most elegant Chart of American History, on rollers, all of which 
have established his fame as a correct and eloquent historian. 


The following from the Poughkeepsie Journal Eagle , of May 5, 1847, is a just 
tribute to-the merit's of Willson's .Historical Works. 

These valuable productions, consisting of Juvenile History, a History of the 
United States, an American History, and a chart of American History, will 
readily commend themselves to the intelligence of the public. In rendering 
more reliable and permanent the great monuments of American Freedom, and 
in erasing those false inscriptions which have long misled the young tourist in 
his laudable attempts to familiarize himself with the story of our fame, these 
works will confer a lasting benefit upon our country. 

The author, unwilling to take anything on trust, has pushed his inquiries 
into every explored and unexplored region ; has drawn his facts from original 
sources, and they may be relied on- as correct in the numerous instances in 
which he differs from his contemporaries. 

It is stated in some of our text-books that the first land discovered by the 
Cabots was Newfoundland; that the Cabots sailed in 1494 or ’95 ; that they 


























CTSJSfSSSHSSB# 


discovered land on ilie 11th, or as others say the 14th of June; that De Soto ; s 
survivors sailed down the Mississippi and directly to Cuba; that the Chero- 
kees belong to the Mobitian family ; that Port Royal was the oldest Christian 
settlement, &e.' 

It is a surprising fact, that these Histories correct more than two hundred 
and fifty errors found in text-books now in daily use in our schools; and it is 
a matter of grave inquiry whether teachers are not bound immediately to arrest 
the farther progress of error. 

The introduct ion of maps on the same page to denote the localities of places 
not found on ordinary maps, is a valuable improvement. The learner will lose 
all interest in a place or an event connected with a place, of w'hich he knows 
not even the locality. 

Willson’s History for Schools has also received the unqualified recommenda* 
tion of John Grrscom, L. L. D., of New Jersey. Joshua Bates of Boston, Charles 
Bartlett of Poughkeepsie, and other influential and excellent teachers. It is 
aho the text-book in history in the Public Schools of New-York City, Brook¬ 
lyn, Newark, Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Cincinnati and St. Louis. 


WILLSON’S JUVENILE AMERICAN HISTORY. 


From the u Western School Journal. 71 

This work is designed for younger classes in Schools; commencing with the 
discovery of this Continent, it gives a sketch of our history down to the pres¬ 
ent day. Hitherto much difficulty has been encountered in introducing the 
study of history into schools, from the marked deficiencies of the works com¬ 
piled for use in juvenile classes, as well in point of accuracy, as in their imper¬ 
fect adaptedness to the wants of the young. Mr. Willson has compiled this 
work, with the blunders of his predecessors before his eyes, and has evidently 
done what man can do, to avoid their errors—that is, he has investigated closely, 
has faithfully collated and verified his facts and dates, and as a natural con¬ 
sequence, has produced a most accurate work. The accuracy of his work, how¬ 
ever, is, by no means, its sole excellence; his narrative is given in clear simple 
style, comprehensible to the very young ; his biographical sketches of distin¬ 
guished men, as of Washington, or Franklin, are in language, forcible and 
vividly descriptive, holding up to our view, a distinct picture of the man, as 
if we had him face to face. These biographies form no unimportant portion 
of the work, for with us, the history of our eminent men, is in a great degree, 
the history of our country. 

Many of the lessons are accompanied by judicious pictorial illustrations, and 
to the description of each State is affixed a neat engraving of its seal, or 
armorial device.. Allusion is continually made, throughout the work, to the 
geography of the parts described ; in recording any important event, its place 
of occurrence is presented in a marginal map, thus associating the event with 
its locality, and more deeply impressing both on the mind of the pupil. 

So far as historical truth will permit, the author has excluded that constant 
allusion to scenes of bloodshed, so generally, and that too in terms of admira¬ 
tion, laid before the readers of history ; this characteristic of the work, should 
alone recommend it. Such descriptions can only tend to vitiate the taste.of the 
child—their moral effect is such, that no place should be allowed them in any 
school book—unless it be in reprobation of them. 

As a means of impressing upon the young correct views of our past history, 
we have seen no equal to this work of Mr. Willson, and from our own high 
opinion of its merit, supported as it is, by that of many distinguished critics 
and instructors, we do not hesitate to commend it to the public, as well fitted 
for general use. 












* V®§p*. ; 


o * 
* ' 



: ^o« • 

• 4 0, * 

,, <£> ** ar 

<> % % 
t • o„ ^ V * ‘.M/* <T^ 


°« • 

• c**V • 

♦ ^ <#», • 



O -o, »* A <V V?7* * O v ^ *• • * * /s 

^> ^ f. u o «!*»-.• 

^0 


W ,° ^o< .* 

• >°-v '&MS: • 



<<T * ^ 


«•“% -s 



<f, *<7vi • ,6 V O -«. . * /V <\ ♦*JvT * .6 

% o* ,«‘A!* V ,0* ,• 

:*. .« c ?MZ^,.\ «. .-^ .v<§i§kv. ^ o * ;V3 




; 


jlO vY 

+ K v ^v -'Vi\\\S^ * ~ ^ 

• -0 

^ * • " 0 A? 

<> .»*• » Y> . t « o, ,r < > 

^ xV *:<?. 5) • 



**' * v^ % L^Lr, ’*C‘. 



<* */TV.‘ .0' o '...* v 

. "b* (y • 1 *.». ^o. ,4> 

0 * 





A> C< 
*/*2 




V o 
* 

* 

*• *° ■%. 

• / Y. * 

* (","’■ i VA'jfei* 

0, ‘ ... <x '••• 


o 0 * 9 <* ^ . 

* cc5^vVv^ V ’c, r° t 

.o A 4 ' v ^ * 


AO* 



V s sJtiktZ* 




( Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 


* «> 

^ 'ail/iwr ^ <t V ri» * 

o <y %p 

J Vl^ * 

’; '"o ^ : 

0 ° %/^V -C 

* ' s • ♦ r 


4»* , »7 J U63CIQITI6Q Uolliy IliB Duurvrsccp^i K'w» 

b** ’Kp a ' Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
* ^CT Treatment Date: April 2010 

*• ^ _ PreservationTechnologies 


o v * * *°* ^ 




A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 


111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


r?OA\ 77Q-0111 








kV * • 1 * V * 

, t • o . <\ v * * * - 

+ <3 & • ^ V. * I r i V> ♦ ^x. 

*■ ^ :Jjfc' W 

5 ^ .»«; ,v^ 


? 4°^ - w// „, k . 



J- ..... % " v^ .* 


w*/ \w\**?- 

^ .0^ t • t V* * ; 0 -V o 0 * 0 * ^ t I , *t* 

r* . c *#££>:-> ° or *\*$SW* c° * % l*n?£+ o 





• N 0 


v . cv „ 

4J 

;£& \/ .* 

; .& %■ • 

o ♦ k * 


4 0 ^. 



* * <s> o„ *, 





/ * 

A* ,.., '«<* '• < ’“ A°° 

© .4/ ' P’Jf^QfoZ* "Ax <& * * 

% W » W * 

- 


' ■* a> * ,$p o'wjjft vy>» * A v i 

\<V ’b'lX&'jr %/'?•>' A V' 

i* ^ ,0* t •*•'/♦ *o n A V 6 «»s\ 

;V^ia» '£m&^ «.j? .« ’ 




°o 


"of 


4?-^ 






^5^ \p vV 

Jy o v^§^V o *- 

..„.% "■■ .^,.., v *"°° *°° v **"* -i« v 

• - •• x •*' •***• \/M-V - 



*- 7 vT* <G S A 

^ xCT 4 * w ' * ♦ ^o aV c°*s *<s> 

r - •■ -—/v>i, -r O ^ 




«5°^ 





^d* : 


...,V»V*,.. %. % *' , '’ s >^,.. \'* r:r °°' i°' 
*• ^ S^\ W ;^:\/ 9 / 

.vjkut* ■‘.^ii^»“ av’^ °MW§: 


WWsssr* <s y +$+ - ° c,^ u ^ ^ 

0 V^QsXr * A/ v*\ * * -OX eVMW* xV 7*. • c 

♦ <5 ^ < a ^ V ^ /)V V J* # r (cSi v 4 r d» tr 

•••*• ^ <> ^'VVi* <(F *0 *o . *« A, ^ * 

° ^ «• < s5QCv\V<te <,k ^ ''w G * o *^c55Xv^ vl 

?£wz>^ oV^mv* ^ 


: ^ 6 ^ : 




> ^ * • - ’ • y <^ * • * • ” A°' 

t * O - X/ . | • • » ^-v (SV 

. V ^ A *Jy ; ^ 


O V 


» * o. 




r ^<? 


* WliPS * 4 ? viv. *> *V \K ♦ 

' >0/ rt* * ■* a. 

*r??7' (f *o_ '0 4 4'* A 


<$* 





<* ^ v^ ^ 


r»° a^'V ^ 



« 0 -'°*, ^ ■' ,* ‘JLJ* *^b 

.< ®* : 



# 1 \^ .. ^ * - 0 u ^ 
^ .V^^cv ^ 


V' *1^L% 







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































